Pillar 1 are the subs
Pilar ll is the rest of the stuff

A poster asked a few months back about the USN acquiring some conventional submarines. Rather than listening to the random voices on pprune who haven't a clue, here’s some reading that might answer the question.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...able-lethality

https://navalinstitute.com.au/the-ca...bmarine-fleet/

I can't see those two opinion pieces of manned diesel electric, coming to fruition; I think the US will continue with SSN/SSBN and the growing UUV

It seems to be where Australia is heading

I think today's news strengthens the case for an SSN. Range & speed that a conventional boat just doesn't have.

Yes there are quite a few conventional & AIP subs around but they're built because they can't afford an SSN. And TBH the record of reliability for conventional boats isn't exactly brilliant.

There is also a bit of 4th gen 5th gen discounting stuff, Not everyone has a SSN, Currently running at 6 nations

From what I have read, so far at least 10 Iranian warships lost. One sunk by a submarine. Strengthens the case for a range of weapons systems that we may read more details about over time.

Reliability of SSKs would likely be on a par with SSNs if the same was spent on their maintenance! Future operation of SSNs by RAN will likely suck maintenance funds away from every other class in the fleet (as if the situation isn't already problematical now).

your problem with a conventional sub is always range - especially submerged

For the Collins boats Wiki gives

Range

• 11,500 nautical miles (21,300 km; 13,200 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) surfaced
• 9,000 nmi (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph) periscope
• 480 nmi (890 km; 550 mi) at 4 kn (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) submerged

Endurance 70 days

A Los Angleses is given as
Speed

• Surfaced: 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph)
• Submerged: Over 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph), official;[3] 33+ knots, reported[4][5]

Range Refueling required after 30 years[

Endurance 90 days

For Australia - it's 2500 kms just to reach the southern side of Indonesia from Fremantle. That's 100 hours/4days submerged for an SSN but 10 days on the surface for a Collins.

Your point is sound, In fairness there are regional refuel/supply ports, To me the biggest thing is detection, Snorting is/will be problematic with space based, LiDAR, SAR radar, Two weeks AIP still flatten the main battery bank base load, Collins decided against AIP because it didn't extend the underwater that much and the space could be used for more advantage

Australia was a LADS world leader, I don't know where we are now,
Laser Airborne Depth Sounder (LADS) | DST
"In 1996, an improved LADS laser platform was developed for United States Navy use in a P-3 Orion aircraft. In 1998, the new-generation LADS Mk II commenced commercial operations mounted in a de Havilland Dash 8-202 aircraft."

This is what China is claiming in 2019
China has tested a new laser designed to find submarines. This is how it works - ABC News

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e63bd9348.jpeg

Even based out of Darwin a conventional sub will only reach as far as Mindanao max - not even as far N as Guam or as far west as Singapore. Of course most people have no real idea just how far China is away from Australia. Finland is closer to China than Australia is.

You'd have to have basing agreements with Indonesia and IIRC they are dead set against foreign bases of any sort

Why does Australia require any greater range than that? When I served there, it was called a defence force, was there a name change we are not privy to?

If Australia is asked to be a party to a contingent somewhere, then that presumably involves the logistics of local basing to do so. Say the RAN is asked to defend Barking Sands, presumably the local facilities would be available. If it is asked to support activity in the straits of Hormuz, then again, Dodge would probably be available, and darn, it has some good burgers there. It is unlikely that the Australian PM is going to wake up with a rush of blood to the head and go and declare that the Malvinas have to surrender unconditionally to Canberra. Not even Western Samoa, unlikely even Fiji, and NZL, well, since the underarm bowling incident, it is not so open to the affections of its cuzn's. As Surfers and Sydneys eastern burbs are predominantly NZ'ers, the kiwis would like nothing more than the opportunity to have a welfare handout from the grate southern land (not my opinion; the rhetoric that was passed in years gone by that avoided doing the math on the economic benefits of C.E.R.).

I'd actually support an effort to pillage and plunder the supply of biltong from the far side of the I.O., curse you Southern Africa for my addiction to biltong. It remains one of the greatest exports from Africa that doesn't have a "MADE BY DENEL" sticker on the outside.

Exactly who is the enemy that is considered under AUKUS? China? They increase their sphere of influence by being able to actually afford to bribe South Pacific island nations with Yuan, and RMB, while Australia's population objects to national aid and foreign assistance to its neighbours as being a waste. Either way, there is a cost, either in assistance or in defence posture if having PLAN boats moored in the Solomons is offending our sense of order. Being vigilant is not a bad thing, so the RQ-4 seems to be a reasonable proposition, but having a capital ship that becomes your whole defence force seems to be a risky proposition.

Submarines are a planners nightmare, as they have to be accounted for, whether they are there or not, so long as they exist somewhere. Might be the reason the Chinese took such efforts to establish submerged entry to their bases in SW Hainan.

Cocos Keeling apart from having bloody big crabs, has a great yacht club, x'lent harbours, and last time I checked, it still had an Ozzy Ozzy Ozzy sticker on the flag. Same for X'mas Island, which is actually a pretty cool plaice. Both have great beaches, and are close enough to close out the Straits of Malacca, without depleting all of the XXXX on board. If you are wanting to make friends with the PLAN as they covet thy neighbour, I would assume that Oz is unlikely to take on PRC by its lonesome self... so there is Guam, Naha, Yokosuka, Sasebo, Subic (still good for a steak), Viet Nam still has great ports, and brilliant Pho, and would probably not be averse to some presence if the SCS has gone rowdy, they have a history, like India of plinking with the PRC, and they have legitimate annoyances with the 7 dash, 9 dash, toilet dash whatever it is that the PLAN puts forth neglecting UNCLOS (but, given that team members within AUKUS seem to need remedial reading and comprehension classes when it comes to the UN Charter, and international law... hard to get too grumpy, after all, Chinese is quite a change from English so its hardly surprising that there are some inconsistencies with "compliance" with the rules that at one time it was though was a good idea to place into print).

With reports that the apparent adults in the room have been describing the tiff in Iran in terms of Armageddon, the scripture version, not the screen play with Bruce Willis & co, it all appears to be rather irrelevant; we may as well get out the popcorn, and marshmallows and watch the show that is being put on today, AUKUS or no AUKUS.

Collins boats have a range of 11,000nm, which is not shabby for a conventional tub without fleet support, what other countries does Oz really want to go pick a fight with?

That of course is the big question.

there are quite a few people on here who seem to think that Australia will finish up fighting China, and some seem to look forward to it. There are also those who would support the USA come what may. And those who can't face the idea that a very small set of armed forces may be a reasonable position for Australia. A constabulary force in your own (very large) backyard.

That's for Australia and Australians to decide - but I think the rest of us should point out the issues with the various choices.

It is appropriate for any nation to understand the risks and potential threats that exist to its own interests. Not do so would be negligent to the level of being a dereliction of duty. Oz will have contingencies for many scenarios, and the SCS, PRC and the region would be a reasonable addition to any analysis. China is a curious country, with a rich history, that has some interesting characteristics.

Mongolia did its bit in spreading DNA about a fair chunk of the planet, and nowadays is an interesting place to spend a few days at, other than in mid winter, when the reason the hordes went cross country becomes self evident. The rest of the dynasties of the Middle Kingdom, Qin, Han, Tang, Qing, and the other 9 or 10 dynasties were for the most part busy sorting out their own mess, the majority of conflicts were internal. China has a beef with Taiwan, which is not over the island, that has never been a part of China proper. The nationalist Chinese under Chiang Kai-Shek's KMT were not Boy Scouts, but they opposed Mao Zedong and the CCP, and no love was lost in the exercise. Mao did his bit to set back China by a couple of centuries with the cultural revolution, which was another ground hog day, with a different ribbon to forerunners.

China has been successful as it determined that the PRC's CCP could do well by having a hybrid capitalism with communist political control, and that has been fairly successful, until one dude came along and decided that the never again dynasties, was given the heave ho, in a amazingly public manner not so long ago. So, now we got an emperor in all but name. Xi, in strengthening his power base has ended up being pretty effective at ferreting (pandering?) out some spectacular corruption that even rhetoric Russians would blush over. The reported water in propellant tanks of ICBMs was but one example, legions of soldiers being on books and not in boots was another.

As annoying as the wiggles on the map are to cartography, and the continued harassment of the Pinoy's navy, the fundamental issue that the PRC is a net importer of food from the countries that it irritates, and has an energy import problem through chokepoints, it also is conflicted in being happy with urbanisation and affluence which is put at risk by its actions in the SCS and towards Taiwan.

All up, and having lived and worked in China, my view is that the term Chinese Fire Drill was quite apt where the government is involved, whereas, anything in the way of commerce is well done, so long as the CCP is not messing with the omelettes, as it has with the property market within and without its own territory. China has 3 ignition sources, the SCS, Taiwan and the 2 bits of India that it continues to have spats with India.

The PRC has internal conflicts that exist from the diversity of the population, which bubbles away in the background, adding sauce to the feast that is China. Never dull.

Been a few years since I presented a paper on the defensive use of diesels with AIP. For a continent sized country like Australia, you'd need at least three operating bases, each with a few subs and supporting infrastructure, and one ship yard where any of the fleet can get refit/overhaul.

For a smaller country with a shorter coastline -- say, Iran -- who have mostly shallow water in their defensive zones, it's a very good fit (capability/manpower/budget/industrial capacity combination). Same is true for the Baltic nations, and arguable for quite a few of the Mediterranean nations.

The discussion on what AIP/Diesel does for your overall posture is very dependent on how you see your overall regional mission and alliance structure. Not a simple formula when you cast forward 10-15 years into the future to try and figure out the right mix. (fdr's point is a reasonable one, but the issue of foreign basing rights was well raised by Asturias).

The flexibility of an SSN.....

Whether there is an N or not, any boat being away from the dock is a complication to the B team. My point is, SSNs are inherently a long range projection of power, and they achieve the range as a consequence of higher production and maintenance costs compared to their little brothers, the SS/SSGs. While manning might appear to be higher for a large fleet of SS boats, each boat is a lower component of the capital ships of a nation.

Quantity has a quality all of its own when things get kinetic, all other things being equal. SS boats are generally a pain to track. Id take a 6 pack over a single bottle any day.

On basing, a single base is an invitation for bad things to happen. Boats should be distributed whenever possible, their location is not something that should be traced on google earth. This includes all existing naval facilities, Ukraine has been handing out pointers of what to care about, that needs an overhaul of our assumptions unless we want our fleets to resemble the boneyards of Rybachiy bay.

" their location is not something that should be traced on google earth."

that boat sailed many many years ago

It's something like 20 years since I was told by a Lt Gen USMC:-

"assume anything you put on the web or in an email will be in the public domain eventually. There is no such thing as a "secret" any longer. We live in an age of total information, totally distributed".

https://www.state.gov/releases/burea...ated-training/

Apologies if this video has already been posted in this thread -- an oldie but a goldie:

Jobs
 

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5efd56910f.jpg
Adelaide city centre